tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg March 15, 2014 10:00pm-11:01pm EDT
the mysterious disappearances prompted a massive international air and sea search. there been no results so far. several countries are assisting malaysia in their efforts. tensions have grown. on thursday the wall street journal reported investigators were looking at data which it just the plane might have flown for hours after it was -- after its last known contact. the general reporter from the story joins us live from los angeles, california. we are pleased to have andy with us. >> good to be here.
>> tell me where we are at this moment. you filed the story overnight. then you have the acting transport minister suggested wasn't true, as far as he knew. what has happened since then? investigators seem to be suggesting that there was a period in which the plane had flown after last contact at 1:03 a.m. >> that is correct. this is turning into almost a bad tom clancy novel. you have a malaysian investigator who are challenged. they are not overly competent. you have an aircraft that is supposed to crash into water. there is no debris. now, it seems that investigators are looking seriously at the possibility that this aircraft continue to fly for up to four hours after the last transponder reading and it disappeared off of the radar screens.
this is an unprecedented mix of issues and problems. i don't think it is close to being resolved. >> what do they believe the plane flew for four hours after the last contact they had from the cockpit? >> there were transmissions off of the aircraft which indicate to investigators that it was moving. it was flying. its engines were working for a chunk of that four hours. you have the fog of war. there is also the fog of aviation crash investigation. initially, the suspicion was that this data came from engine monitoring systems for the aircraft. now appears it is even more complicated. there's a system onboard the aircraft which communicates with satellite to download maintenance data, systems monitoring data. very routine. in this case the data was not being transmitted.
the system that was supposed to send it into space was reaching out to the satellite periodically every 30 minutes. essentially saying to the satellite, i'm here. i'm ready to send. this means the aircraft was intact, it was moving, and it completely shatters the notion that people have been talking about ever since day one. the plane went down when transponder stopped transmitting. as of the dramatic happened at that point. we are talking about hours that it remained in the air. investigators are trying to see and suspect it may have landed. there is no firm data. they do suspect that it is possible that it landed somewhere in an undisclosed location they don't know. >> what would have been the purpose of the land? they had problems on board over trying to do something else? >> we should remind your
viewers, this is not fiction. this is actually going on. the suspicion is that either a pilot, or a passenger on board the aircraft intentionally turn off the transponder to be invisible to radar. they have nefarious reasons to take the aircraft somewhere. i don't think there is a more specific or firm theory than that. that is a frightening theory. one that is actively being pursued. not the only theory. but clearly, a strand in the investigation national security folks think is worthwhile to delve into. >> what are the other theories? >> structural failure. perhaps some incredibly egregious pilot errors which put the plane into an area they can recover from.
fire can happen quickly. it can overwhelm a cockpit and crew. those are some of the scenarios. they're much less likely ones. the most -- from the folks i talked to, the most perplexing thing, if you have an aircraft that crashed into the ocean and there has to be some debris, whether it is a supersonic dive, or landing an aircraft on its belly. something has to flow. cushions, pieces of galleys, a life raft, something. despite all of these searches so far, that has not been one piece of wreckage that has verified as coming from the aircraft. that is just perplexing more than anything they have seen.
>> what direction they think the plane might have headed during the four hours after the last message? >> to get more complicated for everyone, the transitions that i talked about provide some locations. not very precise locations. now they are trying to analyze the data to see if they can determine between the bursts 30 minutes or an hour. which direction the plane moved in, and perhaps give an idea of this trajectory. i have to tell you from working on this with my colleagues, i don't believe there was a strong consensus in the investigative community about where the plane is, what happened to me, did he go into the ocean? did it on land? this is the most amazing situation after almost a week.
>> take the air france fly. they found some debris after the plane went down within days. >> that is correct. they didn't find the black box or the recorders for very much longer. they were deep in the ocean. they were difficult to find. they did find debris. the aircraft, the same system we have been talking about, that transmits system monitoring data and maintenance data, the investigators early on got a good overall sense of what was happening on the aircraft. not a full picture, not a detailed examination of the issues. got a sense of what was happening on the plane. we have no sense at this point but was happening on this plane. totally normal transmission aircraft control. and the transponder stops. then you have this bizarre situation where it was flying around in some undetermined locations.
>> planes vanish. this is not the first time. they say to me now, this is the most remarkable vanishing plane we've ever seen. what makes it different? >> the year. the modern jet aircraft with all of the communications and monitoring systems on board, in a very peaceful, good weather night, no indication from the pilot that there was any problems, and as far as we can tell this point, no mechanical issues on this type of aircraft. no nagging safety issues. i think it is dramatically different from other disappearances because the plane is very new. there is no weather. there are no storms. no indications of any mechanical issues before the flight. you are left shrugging your shoulders. there are so many strands that
don't seem to fit together. >> i talked to sully this morning. i said to him, if you can make a couple of phone calls right now to get more understanding, who would you call? he said he would call boeing and rolls-royce. some people are calling them. recipientsbe the about how the engine was performing? >> they would get the information. the information goes to the airline. they would be helping. they are there on scene. this information was not intended to go to them directly. >> to whom? >> to boeing. >> did they receive information?
>> well, the fact -- but we have been reporting is that this is sketchy, but great satellite transmission from the aircraft were there. they indicate the aircraft was flying around. both boeing and rolls-royce are aware of that as well as the investigators. they're trying to make sense of it. it is still an effort in progress. >> would you change anything about the story? >> in the fog, i would have gone differently about what kind of data was coming off of this. the point really is, unlike the scenario which has been the one that everybody has followed for the disappearance, the plane went down at a certain point and let's look for the wreckage. it is clear to me that is not a
scenario that will work in this case. something else happened. this plane kept moving around. that is unprecedented. >> there is one last scenario. the payne stewart scenario. is that a viable option? somehow, somebody was put to -- everybody was put to sleep on the plane? >> with the transponder going out, with the flight of this aircraft, i am told, and we are trying to determine this, there is some indication of some suspicion that there were manual adjustments and changes to the flight management computer when the air craft changed direction. when it disappears from the
radar screens and change directions, investigators suspect there was manual input. if that is the case, the payne stewart scenario is completely out the window. it doesn't make any sense. >> a lot of questions and few answers. >> but fascinating topics. >> thank you. ♪ >> 69 years after saudi arabia states forged an alliance, the countries find themselves at odds. tensions escalate over u.s. policy in the region, especially syria. joining me now, the head of intelligence to syria, and former syrian ambassador to united states and united kingdom. welcome. >> it is nice to be back.
>> a pleasure to have you back. let me remind you of things you have been saying around the world. davos -- what is happening with america is a fascinating spectacle. it is a lesson in what not to do. what the lesson is? >> the lesson is that if you're going to engage in world affairs, stick to what you say, and perform on what you promise. from the perspective of the kingdom, as you rightly said, we had a long-standing relationship with the united states. we have had our ups and downs. but, we look upon the united states as not just a strategic ally, but a very important country. we have more than, the number is 80,000 saudi students spread
over the united states and universities. that is an indication of where the people of saudi arabia want to maintain this close contact. when the u.s. tells us that it is going to do something, we expect them to do it. >> you're talking about the fact that united states, after suggesting that the syrian government had crossed a red line, did not do anything. the president will be quick to say, yes we did do something. >> that is true. getting rid of chemical weapons is a good step. but you have a military conflict now in syria. more than 150,000 people have been killed. i think that not just united states -- >> and millions of refugees. >> the world community should be doing something to stop the
killing. that is not happening. we have geneva i. we have had geneva ii. both of them have gone without any stopping of the killing. where does our responsibility stop? does it stop with simply ending chemical weapons? these fire barrels they can lob on civilians and kill as many they get. that hasn't stopped. this is where my take on this, not just united states, but the world community has been lacking in the will to do something. >> the president said he did in fact support the rebels with weapons and armaments.
he did not do that. it has never been a question of putting boots on the ground on the part of the united states. he chose not to do that. he has looked at it again and he is trying to do some things. he is wary of that. because of the composition of the rebels. the question is, what is your government doing? are you supporting jihadists who very much would be the enemy of your government, the cutter government, and every other government in the middle east, except perhaps the most radical. >> this is where something that has to be done can be done. the kingdom definitely does not support people who would inflict harm on the kingdom. >> and you do know that there are people fighting in the rebel forces who would do that.
>> and we are not supporting that. >> how do you make sure it gets to one and not the other? >> news people like yourself up into the front lines. they have met with these jihadists. we have met the legitimate opposition. they know who they are. my assumption is that the intelligence services, whether it is the cia, in my six, french intelligence, they would have extensive files on who these people are. delivering these weapons, defensive weapons, to the right people is something that to me, is available. you don't have to simply throw these weapons at whoever will
take them. you can choose who your recipients are. make sure they use them in the right fashion of defending themselves against aircrafts, and missiles. >> what is your assessment of the situation on ground? >> my info is mostly from open sources. news media. >> you have friends. >> i do have friends. i sincerely tell you that i depend mostly on open sources. there is a stalemate. both sides going forwards and backwards. something has to break to make the negotiations envisioned in
geneva i successful. if the assad regime believes it can win, it is not going to concede on any political compromise. you have to supply these weapons, defensive weapons. antitank, etc. to level the playing ground. so the opposition can not have a say in the future of what is happening. >> everybody worries that if in fact assad goes, what follows him? >> what follows him, if we are smart, and we should be smart, by supporting the moderate resistance, you can have a moderate and legitimate representation of the syrian people. >> even the most extreme jihadist are fighting among themselves. >> not just the extreme
jihadist. they are fighting assad. they are fighting hezbollah. they are fighting these extremists coming from iraq, supported by iran. they are fighting these almonds -- elements on the ground. >> did the united states government try to restrain with what saudi arabia did in syria? >> not that i know of. i have not heard the u.s. tried to restrain anything. >> because it was helping the jihadists. >> they know exactly who we are supporting. there is extensive cooperation between united states and saudi arabia. on the ground, who receive support in syria. >> does your government trust
the united states government? >> we do. we have had a long and historic relationship with the united states. during the 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's when the cold war was at its height, the saudi arabian and united states worked closely on many issues. afghanistan was one. the middle east, you had terrible things happening. with soviet encroachment. some parties, and the kingdom and united states worked closely. the ultimate cooperation happened when saddam hussein invaded kuwait. we had half a million american soldiers on saudi soil. >> to the consternation of someone like osama bin laden. >> well -- and nonetheless --
>> you were central. as our member, you met with somebody. >> to get bin laden handed over to the kingdom. the united states stood by us. we needed a friend to stand by us. we stood by the united states when they needed a friend to stand by them. i trust united states. >> in the first gulf war? >> and previous to that, and subsequent to that. do you believe that the president and his leadership has weakened america? >> your president has had a tough time. his first term was spent trying to take over the problems the u.s. faced after the previous president left office. whether it was the economy, iraq, afghanistan. you name it. he had to deal with it. >> you have some respect for that fact? >> not only that, but the u.s.
is coming out of all of these problems. that is an indication where the president has gone. in his september speech, he addressed the issue of palestine and nuclear weapons. he has had secretary kerry visiting i don't even know how many times. devoting a lot of time. and meeting with mr. netanyahu. he is meeting next week. that is an indication of where the president is going on important issues for us in the middle east which is the palestinian issue. if we can solve that issue, we can go on to solve that. >> do you believe that john kerry is making progress? >> i hope so. in my view, if he doesn't make progress, on this issue now, we're going to have another problem in the next few years. from palestine, from everything connected to it.
>> you are fully supportive of of the kerry mission? >> very much. not just me as a person. but the arab league has been supportive of the kerry mission. there is a committee that deals with palestine and peace. they have been telling mr. kerry, supporting his efforts in reaching them. >> you believe it has a chance. it depends on the israelis and the palestinians. >> i believe the chances now are better than they have been in the last five years. because of this effort. >> because of kerry? >> the president supporting kerry. that is important. i have been telling people that we need to be -- we need a bear pushing us. that is a good thing. >> and that's the united states government.
>> united states government. president obama. mr. kerry. it gives people like netanyahu the opportunity to turn to their constituency and tell them there is this big bear pushing us. if we don't come through with this, the bear is going to get angry at us. >> then there is iran. the united states is engaged in conversations because they believe there may be an opening with a new regime in iran. it is said that you, and the government that you serve, think that is a terrible mistake. you worry about it more than anything. that you and your government and israel are on the same page. >> the kingdom and the other countries have issued statements
about the p5 plus one talks with iran. saying that they are very hopeful that these negotiations will lead to a permanent agreement on the status of nuclear enrichment and proliferation. being hopeful means that you are supportive. we engage with iran. we have embassies in tehran. hopefully with the election, this spirit rouhani brings will move the other powers, interdicting forces, around to
engagement, rather than combativeness. >> do you believe that rouhani is genuine? >> personally, i believe he is. he has come with that message. during the election campaign, and after the election campaign. he won a mandate. not a big one, 53%. nonetheless, it is a mandate. to improve relations not just with the west, but with the neighboring countries. >> the conventional wisdom is saudi arabia and iran are in a competition for influence in the gulf. there you have it. they see it as a zero-sum game. >> i think what is good for both of us is good.
the area remains without nuclear weapons. at the area engages in negotiations and not conflict. that we don't interfere in each other's affairs. one of the problems we have had with iran, they interfere in syria. they have guards on the ground. they have asked hezbollah to interfere in lebanon. they have asked other malicious from iraq to interfere. they interfere in iraq. >> they would say it is not interfering. >> they have to show that is true. we can show that iranians are doing that. there are no saudi troops in syria. >> there are some saudi's who are fighting on the side of the rebels. >> you have citizens. you have europeans.
>> the worry is, what happens when those jihadists go back to where they are from. >> this is what i'm saying in my talks everywhere. syria is a festering wound. it collects bacteria. these bacteria are now fighting in theory. once that fighting stops, they're going to go back where they came from. the likelihood is that they will in fact wherever they came from. stopping the fight in serious more important than simply letting it go on indefinitely. >> what is your assessment of iraq? >> iraq is a work in progress. you have a government that is as you can see, even under the shia constituency, opposing the
present government. among the kurds, they are in opposition to what the present government is doing. they are coming up for elections in the next couple of months. so, there is an opportunity there for the people of iraq to say words, and hopefully change the complexion of the government from being feudalistic into a more accommodating and national government than they have. >> to think it was mistake for american troops to not stay behind? >> america invaded iraq in 2003. when america said we were going to withdraw, they should withdraw. >> that is what the president
says. >> i agree with the president. >> afghanistan? >> same way. when your troops were chasing bin laden, in 2002, then you stopped because you withdrew your troops to deploy them in iraq. that was a mistake. >> that wasn't what happened in tora bora. in how the afghans could take care of at that point. >> that was a mistake. the second was when they kill bin laden. the mistake there, having killed bin laden, they have declared victory. >> what we have set out to do. >> mission accomplished. they are still negotiating with the present government on status of force agreement post 2014. i think the united states should
get out of afghanistan. >> suppose it comes with other rogue states. that is a breeding ground for al qaeda affiliates. >> al qaeda and affiliates, the afghan people are not in support of them. the taliban did the worst thing in afghanistan. that is why the afghan people supported the u.s. and international efforts in afghanistan. i think if you deal with pakistan, with india, with iran, and hopefully develop economic and social development in afghanistan, you can get over this issue. >> what is going to happen in pakistan?
>> what does pakistan need? it needs stability. it needs a freedom from baggage inherited from previous governments. on stability, the government has to establish its strength. some areas where there isn't much government, they need to have economics. >> the biggest problem the u.s. had in afghanistan was that there was a safe refuge. >> the pakistanis would say there was also a safe refuge for some pakistani elements. you have to fix that issue. the only way you can do that is by fixing the durand line.
this is from british colonial days. by doing that, by fixing this line, having a permanent, then you can relieve the huge pressure from the shoulders of the afghani leaders who worry about the ambitious groups in afghanistan. you have read the history. you know the area. >> if the iranians get a bomb, they will have a bomb simply because they will go to their friends in pakistan and it will be there in 10 minutes. that is what they say. >> everybody says that. first of all, i don't think that pakistan is going to be free to do what they want. they're going to face a lot of
sanctions. the kingdom is going to face a lot of sanctions. we would prefer to have a zone free of weapons of mass distraction in the area. extending from iran, all the way across, including turkey, israel, and the arab countries. >> they would never agree to that. >> why not. he gave an interview when he was alive but he said if there is a piece of the arab world, we might consider having some kind of weapons of mass destruction. he repeated the statement when he was prime minister. in the last few months, discussions on the zone free of
mass distraction, through the ie meetings. israel participates in the discussions for having his own weapons of mass destruction. my vision to that is that if we can have the five permanent members of the security council provide two guarantees, one is a nuclear security umbrella for all members, and second, the five permanent members would guarantee that they will militarily sanction any infringements on the zone. we can have the discussions with all the members of the zone to remove what is now a dispute. >> i want to talk about your country. how is the king? >> he is fine. he is 92 years old.
>> 92 years old. >> knock on wood. >> the succession is set. we have a crown prince. we have counsel. >> the king has had bouts with bad health. >> indeed. he had two operations. he does his work. he meets with the ministers. he meets with heads of state. he meets with president obama. he does the work. his crown prince is going to be on a visit to china in the next few days. he has been on a visit to japan. the kingdom is operating. >> what happened to prince
vandar? the reports coming out is that he is on the way out. >> i tell everybody, if you don't see it coming out of the royal d1 in a statement saying what it is, don't believe what you read. >> what is going to happen is that he falls back? what is the scenario? >> if there is anything going to happen, it will come out of the royal d1. >> was he in trouble? >> i have no idea. prince vandar, they are the concern of the government. they are not my concern. >> people believe you speak for the government. [laughter] when you condemn the united states and raise questions about our ability to stand firm, you are reflecting your government's position.
>> we have a saying. he your friend is he who tells you the truth, not he who tells you what you want to hear. i as a friend of the united states and many saudis as friends of the united states have been telling our friends in the united states what we believe is the truth. i don't think i've ever condemned the united states. >> i could read you some language. >> we could have an argument about semantics on that issue. what i say is, if i see my friend doing something wrong, i have to tell him he is doing something wrong. >> something wrong he was doing was not being as tough as he should've been when the so-called red line that he announced was passed? that was the issue. >> indeed.
>> a final thing. the qatar government is always raising concerns. wanting to play a huge role in the region. the kind of role that saudi arabia and egypt have played. this is jeffrey goldberg. you know his work. he gets these interviews all the time. you read those. the amir, he met secretly in kuwait last week with foreign ministers from five neighboring countries, including saudi arabia, bahrain, according to two people with direct knowledge of this meeting. including your brother. he had a simple message for the emir. cut it out.
we know what you are doing. >> saudi arabia, bahrain, and the united emirates withdrew their ambassadors a couple of weeks ago. because, there was an agreement that was signed by all the countries, and not in secret. it was a public agreement on security. there'll be no interference in each other's affairs. there'll be coordination between the countries when it comes to issues of security and national interests. in the view of saudi arabia, they have not lived up to that agreement. hence, the public expression was by withdrawing the ambassadors. i can tell you, there was no secret meeting between the dcc
members. all of the meetings that have taken place have been in public. >> they did meet. >> of course. >> and they told him to cut it out. you're meddling too much. >> the artisans of the agreement, he has not lived up to that. that is why we are withdrawing our ambassadors. hopefully they will come to their senses and come around. >> you believe the negotiations will be successful and they will be able to dismantle? >> the hope is there. your late president reagan used to say, trust but verify. you need verification. >> in syria, your hopeful the president will come back from saudi arabia with saudi arabia and the united states on the same page as to what to do about
the war in syria. >> i hope so. we have to stop it. >> thank you for coming. a pleasure to see you. >> always a pleasure to see you. ♪ >> jon medved is here. one of israel's leading venture capitalists. silicon valley may have a rival in the israel high-tech sector. the country's the third largest source of listings on nasdaq. i am pleased to have him on this program. welcome. you grow up in california. >> i grow up in san diego. >> how old were you when you move to israel? >> 24 years old. i grew up in a political family. i made one of those summer visits and it blew my mind. it was a game changer. i got interested in my jewish heritage.
i kept going back and talk myself hebrew. i moved there figuring i would be a poor person. it didn't work out that way. >> had to get rich? >> my father shows up for a trip. he was a physicist before was fashionable. he had a startup doing fiber optics in our garage at home. he showed up and said, i want to go on a visit to meet tech people. i went out with him and sat there in this meeting. they were talking fiber optics. nobody knew what that was in those days. i said i'm doing some guiding and studying history. one guy said what a waste. i felt like i was slapped. what your dad is doing is fiber optics. this is what israel needs. on the way back from that
meeting, i said, what do you do? by the end of the trip i decided i would work for him to see if i could help them raise money. that is how i got started. >> now, i saw a poll that called you one of the 10 most influential americans that have impacted israel. >> it is remarkable now. there so much activity. you throw a rock, you get stuff. there are hundreds of company starting each year. it is not about what starts, but what happens. they get bought by american gis. a lot of the technology actually started in israel. there is under the hood. what happens is they buy one, they buy another, the create huge presence in israel. there are 300 r&d centers employ half of our ecosystem.
for guys like me in the venture capital game, we now have a built-in exit mechanism. you have to get the money out after you put the money in. the best way to do it is to go find multinational ones. >> who would have thought israel would have produced great tech companies? >> we have a bunch of almost great tech companies. by great you're defining it as apple, google, microsoft. there are few other companies in the world. >> what happened to your dads company? >> we sold it. i figured if i could learn fiber optics with a history degree, i could learn software. i build a software company and got that public. if i could do to startups, could
be a venture capitalist. i started it in my garage. about a year and a half ago, i am building something in the crowd funding he wanted change the way that investments are made. i want to democratize it and bring in millions of people who haven't had a chance. kickstarter for investors. they allow you to give money to projects you like. you like the cool singer or an indie movie maker. you give them money. you can't invest money in companies. what we do, we allow accredited investors, they can go online, look at the best startups coming out of israel, and decide which
one they would like to invest in. it is not the $20 you spend on kickstarter. it is still quite democratic. a couple of guys in a closed room. >> this is a quote. "the next 20 years represent a critical juncture on economic prosperity. whether israel will be content selling its content to the highest bidder and remained an outsource, or take innovation from launched mass production." >> the problem is today, if you actually occupy the space the israel occupies, the world
incubator for the new ideas, and you do sell it, it is not a bad place to be. there were $2.2 billion invested in startups. there was $6.7 billion in exits. a billion dollars is in a hundred million dollar company. it is not too shabby when you're getting in at $10 million as an investor. there are companies like checkpoint, the leader in security. they are $13 billion. what you are seeing now is a generation of serial entrepreneurs. people who have been there, done that. the want to do it again. they want more. they are more patient. the want to grow the business.